Care shouldn't be rationed by bureaucrats who want to tell you how sick you really are, or in Canadian terms, that your knee replacement is a "cosmetic" procedure, and put you on a waiting list.

As the son of a Canadian social worker who had two hip replacements and all the required rehab in a Montreal hospital exactly when she needed it, I affirm you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Federalism is a wonderful thing, allowing the idiots in NY to, potentially, ban "big" sodas as a way to cut healthcare costs. I don't want that mandate here in CO, just as I doubt they want our Tabor law, to determine their governmental budgets.

What does federalism have to do with the City of New York banning big sodas?

A courage that bankrupts the nation, is not an admirable trait. Of course, I could also bring up Bush the younger, who used his convictions to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is/was despised by the left for it.

You think "fighting in Iraq" took "courage" on the part of an appointed draft-dodging president and vice president?

When it became clear it would be necessary to "fight in Afghanistan" plenty of people across the political spectrum, myself included, agreed that it would be necessary.

"Courage" would have been evident if Bush the younger had gone to the nation and said "about that tax cut...it's not happening. We have to destroy our enemy in Afghanistan and everybody has to sacrifice. After all, we wouldn't want to bankrupt the nation, would we?"

And the right has the very likely fear that a) Obamacare will not only not bend the cost curve down, it will drive it almost vertically up, b) that due to a, rationing will happen, exactly as it does everywhere else there is nationalized care, and the problems associated with that

Care should be rationed. Why on earth, would the poor have the same care as the rich? It doesn't happen in anything else in life. That is why people want to get rich. It has advantages.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic here...

Sorry Jasr, but I am not. It is what I observe in real life. It is not what I wish. We have to start by acknoweledging what is before we can make any meaningful changes or the attempt would based on a falsehood.

Well in that case, I would say you are being a little sarcastic, and that is a good thing.

I believe in a universal health care safety net. You cannot have that unless there is rationing. There would be no amount of money enough to pay for everything for everybody. Fact of life.

Well there is already plenty of rationing in the system we have now, due to the phenomenon which you have observed.

But if there really were a universal health safety net, then the rationing would at least be transparent. That is the reason why Canadians keep wait time statistics. It gives cause and effect data directly to the Canadian taxpayers who fund the single payer pools.

In the individual mandate system (big sell- off to the insurance companies) the insured will get what they pay for.

I do not disagree.

If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.

The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.

If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.

The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.

I wouldn't ...

I design a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.

I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare. I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now. I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.

My plan is the only plan that preserves all. ... and it would cost a fraction of what we spend today.

***We've already GOT such a System for the Indigent -- it's called "The County Hospital," and it's WAAAAY over-burdened and it's available ONLY in larger Urban Areas ...

Wouldn't it be TERRIBLY inefficient to have Separate (and inherently UNEQUAL) Clinics in every Community -- ONE Clinic for The Rich, and ANOTHER for The Poor ... ??? Would EVERY Clinic hoast the latest-best MRI Scanners, e.g. -- TWO in EVERY Community ... ??? and completely FULL-Duty Operating Suites, ready to perform Heart Transplants, etc., in SEPARATE Facilities ... ???

If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.

The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.

I wouldn't ...

I design ***a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.

I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare. I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now. I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.

My plan is the only plan that preserves all. ... and it would cost a fraction of what we spend today.

Care shouldn't be rationed by bureaucrats who want to tell you how sick you really are, or in Canadian terms, that your knee replacement is a "cosmetic" procedure, and put you on a waiting list.

As the son of a Canadian social worker who had two hip replacements and all the required rehab in a Montreal hospital exactly when she needed it, I affirm you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Well, I certainly have not been in that circumstance, but have read so many accounts and listened to the stories of people who HAVE experienced that, I will stick by my stance.

If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.

The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.

I wouldn't ...

I design ***a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.

I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare. I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now. I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.

My plan is the only plan that preserves all. ... and it would cost a fraction of what we spend today.

Federalism is a wonderful thing, allowing the idiots in NY to, potentially, ban "big" sodas as a way to cut healthcare costs. I don't want that mandate here in CO, just as I doubt they want our Tabor law, to determine their governmental budgets.

What does federalism have to do with the City of New York banning big sodas?

Fair statement. I should have said in the state wishes to enact a certain law they should. In CO we pay a candy tax (sorta, Hershey bars taxed, Twix, because it has flour products in it, no) Should that be mandated law by the govt nationwide? No.

A courage that bankrupts the nation, is not an admirable trait. Of course, I could also bring up Bush the younger, who used his convictions to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is/was despised by the left for it.

You think "fighting in Iraq" took "courage" on the part of an appointed draft-dodging president and vice president?

No. I said he stood by the courage of his convictions, and to have a conviction that we needed to do what we did, and get shredded for it by many in America is courageous. As to the draft dodging, blah, blah, well, whatever.

When it became clear it would be necessary to "fight in Afghanistan" plenty of people across the political spectrum, myself included, agreed that it would be necessary.

Read Ted's pieces on Afghan. Or Catboxers. Or many on the left about the Obama surge there. Or read pieces about Afghan now. If you truly believe in that fight, you are virtually alone on the left.

"Courage" would have been evident if Bush the younger had gone to the nation and said "about that tax cut...it's not happening. We have to destroy our enemy in Afghanistan and everybody has to sacrifice. After all, we wouldn't want to bankrupt the nation, would we?"

There isn't anything courageous about raising taxes. There is also nothing courageous in cutting them.He was trying to keep the economy going after the attack on 9/11.

We cannot bankrupt this nation, regardless the situation. I certainly understand the snark here, but one can't compare Bush's outrageous spending, and Obama's. That is like comparing my sons 7th grade football team to the NFL. Obama is in a class all by himself.